Talk:Bisection

Spanish names

In Spanish there are two different words for bisector (angle bisector) and perpendicular bisector, namely, bisectiz and mediatriz. Maybe it would be a good idea to separate these two concepts and link them with their Spanish equivalents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.220.23.14 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Same in catalan: Bisectriu (angle bisector) and mediatriu (segment bisector). The iw should be double.--83.33.82.168 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture Bisectors.svg is cut in the article, and the E letter is seen as another F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oabernhardt (talk • contribs) 10:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bisection construction

The construction of the bisection is technically valid, but is implicitly invoking the Compass equivalence theorem. To construct this with a collapsible compass: the two second circles should be constructed by intersecting them with the intersection of the two 'original' lines. 83.117.16.56 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Distinguish: dissection

bisect vt : to divide into two usu. equal parts ~ vi : SEPARATE; also : CROSS, INTERSECT

dissect vt 1: to separate into pieces : expose the several parts (as of an animal) for scientific examination 2: to analyze and interpret minutely ~ vi : to make a dissection

(Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary)

These two terms look similar, are pronounced almost identically, and have similar meanings. Per WP:HAT the Distinguish template "can be used when there can be confusion with a similar term." Since this template results in only one line at the beginning of the article and helps readers to distinguish the two terms, I see no good reason to remove it.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

A week has passed and no one has posted a good reason for the removal of the template, so I have put it back the way it was. Before removing it again, please discuss here first.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely to me that very many will confuse the two. Paul August ☎ 19:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems very likely to me.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I vote against keeping this template. Few people confuse bisection and dissection, and I see no reason to clutter this article with this unnecessary "Not to be confused" notice. If all potential confusions were similarly indicated on Wikipedia, nobody would read it. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Perpendicular bisector equation

The following text was recently inserted into the section, Line segment bisector:

Algebraically, the perpendicular bisector of a line segment with endpoints $P_{1}(x_{1},y_{1})$ and $P_{2}(x_{2},y_{2})$ is given by the equation

$(x-x_{1})^{2}+(y-y_{1})^{2}=(x-x_{2})^{2}+(y-y_{2})^{2}.$

The equation is correct, but implicit and hence not very practical. I recommend changing the equation to the following:

$y=m(x-x_{3})+y_{3}$, where $m=-{\frac {x_{2}-x_{1}}{y_{2}-y_{1}}}$, $x_{3}={\tfrac {1}{2}}(x_{1}+x_{2})$, and $y_{3}={\tfrac {1}{2}}(y_{1}+y_{2})$.

— Anita5192 (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Two years have passed and no one has responded, so I made the change.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)